On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:34:30PM +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:54:23PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:42:35PM +0100, Ren? Rebe wrote:
> > > So, queing alot URBs is the recommended way to sustain the bus? Allowing
> > > way bigger buffers will not be realistic?
> >
> > 16Kb is "way big" in the USB scheme of things aready. Look at the size
> > of your endpoint. It's probably _very_ small compared to that. So no,
> > larger buffer sizes is not realistic at all.
>
> As a data point, I have traces of a scanner session including a
> download of a 26Mb binary image using 524288 bytes logical blocks
> physically transferred with 61440 bytes bulk_in frames. Seems stable
> enough. IIRC the scanner-side controller chip has some advanced
> buffering just to handle that kind of bandwidth.
That's impressive. What are the endpoint sizes on the device that did
this?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
